yboxman
Banned
OK, so here's my second attempt at a timeline. You can find the semi-aborted first here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=226924.
I started thinking about it when I read about the discovery of America by the Leif Ericsson and realized this was happening at almost exactly the same time that northern Scandinavia was being Christianized in an unusually violent manner. This sort of bumped together with reading "1493" and becoming familiar with the hypothesis that the little Ice age was extended and more severe because of the massive death by plague of North American Indians and the resulting re-forestation of the Eastern Woodlands, Yucatan and the Amazon (locking up CO2 previously freed by Native American slash and burn agriculture).
So it got me thinking. What changes would have to occur for:
a. Pagan Norse colonization of Vinland to succeed rather than never getting off to a start and then being abandoned along with Greenland
b. Aesir worshippiers to develop a real theology capable of holding up it's own in a philophosical-spiritual argument with Christianity WITHOUT becoming a mirror image of the church with Odin and Thor substituted for God and Christ.
c. A Pagan Vinland not being militarily overrun by Middle-age Christian Europe.
d. Contact between Pagan Vinland and Christian Europe to be cut off for at least two centuries (long enough for a unique culture to form) until the development of new naval techniques leads to the rediscovery of the Western Hemisphere by Europe.
e. A Pagan vinland to be expansive, advanced, populous and sufficiently politically and ideologicaly robust to have a fighting chance against the discovery age Europeans.
f. Achieve all of the above with a single, plausible POD
In my last aborted timeline I charged off into narrative form right away and got bogged down in details. It was fun but I eventually came to the conclusion I didn't think things through and was creating a story which would take too long to tell and would become less and less interesting as it continued. Besides the historical setting was not sufficiently known to make it "real" alternate history.
So this time I'm going to run my basic framework of Ideas through the gauntlet, build up the story in a "historical overview" mode with occasional interjections of Narrative and then, if it's solid work it over in Narrative form.
That said, what are the problems with each of the above challenges? And how might they be countered?
a. Success/failure of initial colonization:
There seem to be two primary factors making OTL vinland a failure Vs the success of later attempts (and earlier Norse success in Iceland, Greenland, and the East Baltic as well as Portugese-Spanish success in Madeira, Canray Islands, Cape Verde, Azores).
1. The Skaerlings- Viking technology and fighting ability (Leif ericson and his men were not conquistador equivalents. They were simple farmers and seamen) were'nt all that superior to that of the natives to overcome their numerical disparity. And for some reason the Plagues which devastated the Caribbean were never carried by the Vikings to Vinland (which is another interesting "What if". An earlier exposure to these plagues with no later Viking Colonization might have made the Americas MUCH less hospitable for Cortes and his like later on) meaning that the social-military organization of the Beothunks was never disrupted and they never abandoned land (as happened in New England) which could be claimed by the Viking pilgrim equivalents. I don't think the military technology is that great a factor. Gunpowder was frightening to the Aztecs in the initial clashes and won the Europeans some early victories but wasn't a victory maker. Steel armor and weapons, if held by semi-professional fighters, should be enough of an advantage to let the Vikings win a stand up fight or even protacted skirmishes if they are not outrageously outnumbered and if demographic pressure does not impel the beothunks to fight to the death rather than relocating to land vacated by Plagues.
Why did Plagues never cross the Atlantic to vinland? Partly because Smallpox, the big killer, was far less endemic in Europe around 1000 AD Than it would become 500 years later. So were other epidemics (and Yersina pestis would only appear around 1200). The population was just too small. Furthermore, the number of people who visited Greenland each year from the mainland was also small, at least after the initial colonization. So while epidemics did occasionaly strike Greenland this was rare and, especially given the long sailing/rowing distance to Vinland just never made it- or were never transmitted to the Natives. It looks like contact between the Vikings and the Beothunk was very low indeed (Partly because Leif's brother got off to a realy bad start with them). Frankly it still seems dammed odd to me. You would think that 250-350 years of sporadic contact would get SOME diseases through- but it didn't. So instead of butterflying the no-infection history away I'm afraid I will have to give a good reason why they DO cross ITTL. The only good reason I can think of is the arrival of large numbers of malnourished immigrants from Scandinavia or Iceland who do not get "soaked up" by the Greenland settlements but almost immediately head to Vinalnd. Which leads me to point #2.
2. Not enough Vikings wanted to stay and make a home in Vinland. You would think that since most of these Vikings came from Frigging GREENLAND they would find New-foundland with a reltively mild climate, farmable land, fisheries and timber much more enticing, right? Well, they didn't and Skaerlings were not the only reason. The main reason seems to me to be that Greenlanders had a very high percentage of their labor engaged in getting luxury goods (Narwhal tusks- a substitute for ivory) to sell Europe in return for the output of European proto-industrial labor (Ships, worked Iron, weapons, etc). Vinlanders simply seem to have had the same idea- supply some of Greenland's need for timber, supplement capital by fur trapping or trading, and survive on fishing and hunting.
The thing is, that's exactly how the Successful later colonization efforts worked. Initial settlement of the atlantic islands, and later the caribean, was in order to produce luxury goods for the mainland (Slaves, sugar and wine). Canada started off as a fur trading post (Not an option for Viking settelement because shipping time and volume is lower and Europe is not trapped out this early) The Virginia colony was a colossal failure until tobacco was introduced. What drew the Spaniards to Meso amd south America was first the finished products of Indian civilization and then the chance to tax said Indians without investing much labor into the endevour. And in the middle ages The East Baltic settlements (or british island. Or Normandy) of the Vikings were based on extracting labor from the Native Finns and Balts rather than actually farming the Land.
There are two exceptions to this. The Pilgrims in new England who were fleeing a society which did not allow them to live out their religious ideal. And The Iceland settlement which was established due to a combination of population pressure and endemic civil war and feauds in Norway.
So the only way to get enough Vikings to vinland is to make them the self-identified losing side of a struggle in Scandinavia with Christianity- while denying them any real option to convert publicly and keep their property and private worship (which is usually what happened in Christianized countries. Of course since the Worship was private and not socially reinforced it faded away over a century or so). OTL, the Northern Crusades of the 12th Century against the Finns, Lithuanians, Prussians, Wends, etc are a good model- but the Scandinavians were by then nominally Christians and very enthusiastic crusaders. And the East Baltic people had nowhere to flee to. What we need is an protracted Northern crusade against a pagan Scandinavia- AFTER Vinland is discovered and partially settled. OTL Leif Ericson was converted to Christianity By Olaf I just before he discovered Vinland and the same year the Icelan Allthing decided to convert to Christianity under pressure from Olaf. So the POD needs to be earlier and delay the spread of "Official" Christianity to Northern Scandinavia (Not Denmark)
Which leads me to the next point…
b. Aesiratu organized religion.
Paganism won some defensive battles with Christianity- but it never won an offensive one. Even if a Pagan ruler happened to regain control of a recently Christianized country he never vigorously and consitintly prosecuted the established Christians. And if a Pagan ruler (the Vikings and the Mongols are both good examples) succeeded in conquering a coutry where Christianity (or Islam) was established he never actually tried to convert the population to his belief. He might pillage the Churches and Mosques, and he might exterminate or drive out the local population and bring in his own settelers (as seems to have happened in the Balkans during the great movement of people)- but he would never actually try to CONVINCE them to BELIEVE differently. And eventually he would come to the conclusion that it was better to adopt the local religion.
Why? Several reasons:
1. No denial of the other. A Viking might claim that Thor was mighty and that the White Christ was a weakling- but it would be hard for him to claim that he did not exist. Christians could and did.
2. No Taboo- A Christian was forbidden to partake in Pagan rituals. A Pagan however could partake and eventualy slide into Christianity.
3. Ethnocentrism- The gods of each tribe and nation were assumed to be for, well, that tribe and nation. It would make no sense for a Viking to convert a Slav to Odin worship unless he had already conquered him- and even then the idea of a permanent master-slave relation between people worshipping different gods would be a perfectly reasonable option for him. Such attitudes were also apparent among European settlers who did not want Missionaries baptizing Indians or black slaves- but the universal attitudes of the church prevailed.
4. No organized hierchy with coherent interests- The Church was, well, the CHURCH. While Early Middle Ages church was not as centralized as it would later become a policy statement (support Otto on the Throne of the Holy Roman Empire! Interdict the British Islands!) Had a real and widespread effect. There was no one, single, leadership of the "Church of Odin". Only a few part-time functionaries who carried out sacrifices when they were not tending their farms.
5. Less vested interests- The Number of Christian priests, monks and their relatives was HUGE. The number of Professional or even part time Pagan priests was much smaller.
6. Less useful- The Christian church provided beyrocrats, diplomats, scribes, and a ideological support for monarches Vs rebellious barons and peasants. Pagan priests simply did not furlfill these functions as well- if only because in the absence of a unified hiearchy some other priest would sabotage his effort.
7. No threat of hell. Christianity (and Islam) could threaten no believers with punishment in the afterlife. Pagan priests didn't realy have this concept and could only threaten "Bad luck" in this life. But since Christians and Christian nations could be seen to be doing better than their neighbors this could only weaken belief.
8. Critical mass- Once the Franks converted to Christianity the diplomatic and economic advantages of doing the same were simply larger than maintaining the old religions.
So how in the world do you make a Pagan culture survive?
1. Isolation- but this is a temporay measure. Eventually The Age of discovery Europeans will find you and start inermentally converting you.
2. National pride la mode Shinto Japan- But nationalism is a long way away. And so are the crusades. And Even Shinto japan was not a fully successful model (membership in Christian churches kept on rising).
3. A good theological argument. The Best way I can think of this in the Viking context is something like this: "if God-Christ created the world and is all powerful then why did he not reveal himself to our ancestors? After all, WE are the chosen people, right? What if Christ is not a new god (for how can gods be new?) but is instead a much older, darker god which we have rejected? What if Christ is realy Loki the trickster (or Surtr or one of the other Giants but Loki works best) who, too weak to defeat us in battle, seeks to control us by means of his cunning woman like priests who would end our raids, forbid us from holding thralls and force us to have only one woman? Embracing Christ means becoming Loki's pawns against the "good" gods, hastening Fimbulwinter, and giving up our chance of rebirth in the next world after midgard is destroyed." The suprising thing is that few Pagan cultures seem to have tried to defend themselves against chriostianity by associating Christ with their "Adversary figure". Partly, I guess, it's because it's very hard to attach a bad rep to Jesus. To much of a nice guy. And it's even harder to pin a bad rep and God the creator- his profile is simply too all encompassing to fit the stories of Chernonbog, or Hades, or Ahariman or whatnot. But there is a real contradiction between the virtues embodied by The Aesir and those espoused by the Church. And Loki DOES have a trickster reputation of claiming to do favors to others while looking out for #1. And the actions of the Church can be inerpeted, certainly by those opposed to it,
4. A Powerful, professional Pagan organization which both fulfills part of the functions of the Christian church and has a vested interest in keeping Christianity out- and which is essential to maintaining the rule of the presiding king. Unless I manfacture a "prophet of Odin" the only real candidates seem to be the Jomvikings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomsviking . They are sort of a mix of a Pagan proto-Teautonic order, freelance mercenaries and seaborn Nordic Cossacks. OTL they had a stronghold at the mouth of the Oder, participated in the raids/trade of the Eastern Baltic, made several failed attempts to intervene in dynastic struggles in Sweden and Norway and hired out to Christian monarches such as Athelsdane, the Holy Roman emperor and others. They were eventually wiped out By Magnus, the Christian king of Norway in 1089. What if they succeed in their attempt on taking the Swedish or Norweigian Throne? Then you have a Viking king whose rule is dependent on their support. They may not be good scribes but they could serveas a praetorian guard and eventually develop beurocratic as well as military functions. Furthermore, since their position depends on acceptance of their religious ideology they would have a powerful incentive to articulate the theological argument in the previous section.
c. Holding off the Christian knights of the middle ages
You basically need Pagan Norway/Sweden (and then Iceland) to hold off TTL Northern crusade long enough for enough refugees to make it across the Atlantic and establish themselves to make conquering them become much more of a bother than crusading against the nearer and richer east baltic people… long enough for fimbulewinter to make cross atlantic raids impossible. Idealy, this should be a protracted struggle with several ceasfires, internal conflict, and many different waves of refugees, each carrying new plagues and reestablishing the starved out settlements in Vinland Vs an ever more devastated Skaerlings (Similar to the Virginia colony).
d. Isolation
This is where Fimbulewinter comes in. OTL the little Ice age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age started going around 1350, partly (maybe) because of the effects of the Black death on reforestationin Europe, It extended into 1650 partly (maybe) because of the depopulation of the Americas by Eurasian and African plagues. What if the New world Plagues come sooner? Maybe even synchroniously with the Black death in Europe? Would that mean an earlier, harsher Little Ice age? It would certainly make Greenland, an essential stop for that era's naval technology, even more uninhabitable and possibly drive Viking Settlements in Vinland farther south. By the Early 1300s crossatlantic communication would be impossible- and there would be no incentive to resume it. Needless to say, Fimbulewinter, and the Blodshed of the Northern crusade which precedes it, interspersed with civil war and kinstrife between Christian and Pagan Norse fit's in well with Norse Escathalogy and will serve to strengthen the religious foundation of vinland.
e. Expansion
Basically you would need enough people to make it across the atlantic and survive fimbulewinter to breed up a large enough population to withstand age of discovery Europeans (and abrorb, dominate or exterminate the coastal native Americans who survive the Plagues before they have a chance to recover). Given that they would suffer from technological stagnation in isolation (though renewed contact would probably allow them to narrow the Gap) you would need at least a million or so descendants of the original colonists, spread out across the Eastern seabord and Gulf of Mexico (after Conquering Mesoamerica?? Or at least the coastal regions??) to prevent Spain, Portugal, France and England from establishing viable colonies of their own. Assuming a natural increase rate similar to OTL New England colonies (2% per annum) and 200 years of relative peace that means a minimum of 20,000 colonists- about four times as much as OTL Greenland norse population and a quarter of the Iceland population. Doable?
You would also need a political structure which would be a cross between the Icelandic Allthing proto federal democracy (to prevent regional jarls from rebelling against the king), a remaining Jormviking military-religious establishment of some sort and a centralized monarchy to bear up under the strain of reencountering the Europeans.
f. Single POD. I'm going to take the battle of Fyrisvellir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Fýrisvellir . Stybojorn the strong, leader of the Jormvikings, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrbjörn_the_Strong successfully browbeats the King of Denmark Harald Bluetooth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Bluetooth into staying the course in his bid for the Swedish throne against his uncle Eric the "not so" victorious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_the_Victorious.
I started thinking about it when I read about the discovery of America by the Leif Ericsson and realized this was happening at almost exactly the same time that northern Scandinavia was being Christianized in an unusually violent manner. This sort of bumped together with reading "1493" and becoming familiar with the hypothesis that the little Ice age was extended and more severe because of the massive death by plague of North American Indians and the resulting re-forestation of the Eastern Woodlands, Yucatan and the Amazon (locking up CO2 previously freed by Native American slash and burn agriculture).
So it got me thinking. What changes would have to occur for:
a. Pagan Norse colonization of Vinland to succeed rather than never getting off to a start and then being abandoned along with Greenland
b. Aesir worshippiers to develop a real theology capable of holding up it's own in a philophosical-spiritual argument with Christianity WITHOUT becoming a mirror image of the church with Odin and Thor substituted for God and Christ.
c. A Pagan Vinland not being militarily overrun by Middle-age Christian Europe.
d. Contact between Pagan Vinland and Christian Europe to be cut off for at least two centuries (long enough for a unique culture to form) until the development of new naval techniques leads to the rediscovery of the Western Hemisphere by Europe.
e. A Pagan vinland to be expansive, advanced, populous and sufficiently politically and ideologicaly robust to have a fighting chance against the discovery age Europeans.
f. Achieve all of the above with a single, plausible POD
In my last aborted timeline I charged off into narrative form right away and got bogged down in details. It was fun but I eventually came to the conclusion I didn't think things through and was creating a story which would take too long to tell and would become less and less interesting as it continued. Besides the historical setting was not sufficiently known to make it "real" alternate history.
So this time I'm going to run my basic framework of Ideas through the gauntlet, build up the story in a "historical overview" mode with occasional interjections of Narrative and then, if it's solid work it over in Narrative form.
That said, what are the problems with each of the above challenges? And how might they be countered?
a. Success/failure of initial colonization:
There seem to be two primary factors making OTL vinland a failure Vs the success of later attempts (and earlier Norse success in Iceland, Greenland, and the East Baltic as well as Portugese-Spanish success in Madeira, Canray Islands, Cape Verde, Azores).
1. The Skaerlings- Viking technology and fighting ability (Leif ericson and his men were not conquistador equivalents. They were simple farmers and seamen) were'nt all that superior to that of the natives to overcome their numerical disparity. And for some reason the Plagues which devastated the Caribbean were never carried by the Vikings to Vinland (which is another interesting "What if". An earlier exposure to these plagues with no later Viking Colonization might have made the Americas MUCH less hospitable for Cortes and his like later on) meaning that the social-military organization of the Beothunks was never disrupted and they never abandoned land (as happened in New England) which could be claimed by the Viking pilgrim equivalents. I don't think the military technology is that great a factor. Gunpowder was frightening to the Aztecs in the initial clashes and won the Europeans some early victories but wasn't a victory maker. Steel armor and weapons, if held by semi-professional fighters, should be enough of an advantage to let the Vikings win a stand up fight or even protacted skirmishes if they are not outrageously outnumbered and if demographic pressure does not impel the beothunks to fight to the death rather than relocating to land vacated by Plagues.
Why did Plagues never cross the Atlantic to vinland? Partly because Smallpox, the big killer, was far less endemic in Europe around 1000 AD Than it would become 500 years later. So were other epidemics (and Yersina pestis would only appear around 1200). The population was just too small. Furthermore, the number of people who visited Greenland each year from the mainland was also small, at least after the initial colonization. So while epidemics did occasionaly strike Greenland this was rare and, especially given the long sailing/rowing distance to Vinland just never made it- or were never transmitted to the Natives. It looks like contact between the Vikings and the Beothunk was very low indeed (Partly because Leif's brother got off to a realy bad start with them). Frankly it still seems dammed odd to me. You would think that 250-350 years of sporadic contact would get SOME diseases through- but it didn't. So instead of butterflying the no-infection history away I'm afraid I will have to give a good reason why they DO cross ITTL. The only good reason I can think of is the arrival of large numbers of malnourished immigrants from Scandinavia or Iceland who do not get "soaked up" by the Greenland settlements but almost immediately head to Vinalnd. Which leads me to point #2.
2. Not enough Vikings wanted to stay and make a home in Vinland. You would think that since most of these Vikings came from Frigging GREENLAND they would find New-foundland with a reltively mild climate, farmable land, fisheries and timber much more enticing, right? Well, they didn't and Skaerlings were not the only reason. The main reason seems to me to be that Greenlanders had a very high percentage of their labor engaged in getting luxury goods (Narwhal tusks- a substitute for ivory) to sell Europe in return for the output of European proto-industrial labor (Ships, worked Iron, weapons, etc). Vinlanders simply seem to have had the same idea- supply some of Greenland's need for timber, supplement capital by fur trapping or trading, and survive on fishing and hunting.
The thing is, that's exactly how the Successful later colonization efforts worked. Initial settlement of the atlantic islands, and later the caribean, was in order to produce luxury goods for the mainland (Slaves, sugar and wine). Canada started off as a fur trading post (Not an option for Viking settelement because shipping time and volume is lower and Europe is not trapped out this early) The Virginia colony was a colossal failure until tobacco was introduced. What drew the Spaniards to Meso amd south America was first the finished products of Indian civilization and then the chance to tax said Indians without investing much labor into the endevour. And in the middle ages The East Baltic settlements (or british island. Or Normandy) of the Vikings were based on extracting labor from the Native Finns and Balts rather than actually farming the Land.
There are two exceptions to this. The Pilgrims in new England who were fleeing a society which did not allow them to live out their religious ideal. And The Iceland settlement which was established due to a combination of population pressure and endemic civil war and feauds in Norway.
So the only way to get enough Vikings to vinland is to make them the self-identified losing side of a struggle in Scandinavia with Christianity- while denying them any real option to convert publicly and keep their property and private worship (which is usually what happened in Christianized countries. Of course since the Worship was private and not socially reinforced it faded away over a century or so). OTL, the Northern Crusades of the 12th Century against the Finns, Lithuanians, Prussians, Wends, etc are a good model- but the Scandinavians were by then nominally Christians and very enthusiastic crusaders. And the East Baltic people had nowhere to flee to. What we need is an protracted Northern crusade against a pagan Scandinavia- AFTER Vinland is discovered and partially settled. OTL Leif Ericson was converted to Christianity By Olaf I just before he discovered Vinland and the same year the Icelan Allthing decided to convert to Christianity under pressure from Olaf. So the POD needs to be earlier and delay the spread of "Official" Christianity to Northern Scandinavia (Not Denmark)
Which leads me to the next point…
b. Aesiratu organized religion.
Paganism won some defensive battles with Christianity- but it never won an offensive one. Even if a Pagan ruler happened to regain control of a recently Christianized country he never vigorously and consitintly prosecuted the established Christians. And if a Pagan ruler (the Vikings and the Mongols are both good examples) succeeded in conquering a coutry where Christianity (or Islam) was established he never actually tried to convert the population to his belief. He might pillage the Churches and Mosques, and he might exterminate or drive out the local population and bring in his own settelers (as seems to have happened in the Balkans during the great movement of people)- but he would never actually try to CONVINCE them to BELIEVE differently. And eventually he would come to the conclusion that it was better to adopt the local religion.
Why? Several reasons:
1. No denial of the other. A Viking might claim that Thor was mighty and that the White Christ was a weakling- but it would be hard for him to claim that he did not exist. Christians could and did.
2. No Taboo- A Christian was forbidden to partake in Pagan rituals. A Pagan however could partake and eventualy slide into Christianity.
3. Ethnocentrism- The gods of each tribe and nation were assumed to be for, well, that tribe and nation. It would make no sense for a Viking to convert a Slav to Odin worship unless he had already conquered him- and even then the idea of a permanent master-slave relation between people worshipping different gods would be a perfectly reasonable option for him. Such attitudes were also apparent among European settlers who did not want Missionaries baptizing Indians or black slaves- but the universal attitudes of the church prevailed.
4. No organized hierchy with coherent interests- The Church was, well, the CHURCH. While Early Middle Ages church was not as centralized as it would later become a policy statement (support Otto on the Throne of the Holy Roman Empire! Interdict the British Islands!) Had a real and widespread effect. There was no one, single, leadership of the "Church of Odin". Only a few part-time functionaries who carried out sacrifices when they were not tending their farms.
5. Less vested interests- The Number of Christian priests, monks and their relatives was HUGE. The number of Professional or even part time Pagan priests was much smaller.
6. Less useful- The Christian church provided beyrocrats, diplomats, scribes, and a ideological support for monarches Vs rebellious barons and peasants. Pagan priests simply did not furlfill these functions as well- if only because in the absence of a unified hiearchy some other priest would sabotage his effort.
7. No threat of hell. Christianity (and Islam) could threaten no believers with punishment in the afterlife. Pagan priests didn't realy have this concept and could only threaten "Bad luck" in this life. But since Christians and Christian nations could be seen to be doing better than their neighbors this could only weaken belief.
8. Critical mass- Once the Franks converted to Christianity the diplomatic and economic advantages of doing the same were simply larger than maintaining the old religions.
So how in the world do you make a Pagan culture survive?
1. Isolation- but this is a temporay measure. Eventually The Age of discovery Europeans will find you and start inermentally converting you.
2. National pride la mode Shinto Japan- But nationalism is a long way away. And so are the crusades. And Even Shinto japan was not a fully successful model (membership in Christian churches kept on rising).
3. A good theological argument. The Best way I can think of this in the Viking context is something like this: "if God-Christ created the world and is all powerful then why did he not reveal himself to our ancestors? After all, WE are the chosen people, right? What if Christ is not a new god (for how can gods be new?) but is instead a much older, darker god which we have rejected? What if Christ is realy Loki the trickster (or Surtr or one of the other Giants but Loki works best) who, too weak to defeat us in battle, seeks to control us by means of his cunning woman like priests who would end our raids, forbid us from holding thralls and force us to have only one woman? Embracing Christ means becoming Loki's pawns against the "good" gods, hastening Fimbulwinter, and giving up our chance of rebirth in the next world after midgard is destroyed." The suprising thing is that few Pagan cultures seem to have tried to defend themselves against chriostianity by associating Christ with their "Adversary figure". Partly, I guess, it's because it's very hard to attach a bad rep to Jesus. To much of a nice guy. And it's even harder to pin a bad rep and God the creator- his profile is simply too all encompassing to fit the stories of Chernonbog, or Hades, or Ahariman or whatnot. But there is a real contradiction between the virtues embodied by The Aesir and those espoused by the Church. And Loki DOES have a trickster reputation of claiming to do favors to others while looking out for #1. And the actions of the Church can be inerpeted, certainly by those opposed to it,
4. A Powerful, professional Pagan organization which both fulfills part of the functions of the Christian church and has a vested interest in keeping Christianity out- and which is essential to maintaining the rule of the presiding king. Unless I manfacture a "prophet of Odin" the only real candidates seem to be the Jomvikings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomsviking . They are sort of a mix of a Pagan proto-Teautonic order, freelance mercenaries and seaborn Nordic Cossacks. OTL they had a stronghold at the mouth of the Oder, participated in the raids/trade of the Eastern Baltic, made several failed attempts to intervene in dynastic struggles in Sweden and Norway and hired out to Christian monarches such as Athelsdane, the Holy Roman emperor and others. They were eventually wiped out By Magnus, the Christian king of Norway in 1089. What if they succeed in their attempt on taking the Swedish or Norweigian Throne? Then you have a Viking king whose rule is dependent on their support. They may not be good scribes but they could serveas a praetorian guard and eventually develop beurocratic as well as military functions. Furthermore, since their position depends on acceptance of their religious ideology they would have a powerful incentive to articulate the theological argument in the previous section.
c. Holding off the Christian knights of the middle ages
You basically need Pagan Norway/Sweden (and then Iceland) to hold off TTL Northern crusade long enough for enough refugees to make it across the Atlantic and establish themselves to make conquering them become much more of a bother than crusading against the nearer and richer east baltic people… long enough for fimbulewinter to make cross atlantic raids impossible. Idealy, this should be a protracted struggle with several ceasfires, internal conflict, and many different waves of refugees, each carrying new plagues and reestablishing the starved out settlements in Vinland Vs an ever more devastated Skaerlings (Similar to the Virginia colony).
d. Isolation
This is where Fimbulewinter comes in. OTL the little Ice age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age started going around 1350, partly (maybe) because of the effects of the Black death on reforestationin Europe, It extended into 1650 partly (maybe) because of the depopulation of the Americas by Eurasian and African plagues. What if the New world Plagues come sooner? Maybe even synchroniously with the Black death in Europe? Would that mean an earlier, harsher Little Ice age? It would certainly make Greenland, an essential stop for that era's naval technology, even more uninhabitable and possibly drive Viking Settlements in Vinland farther south. By the Early 1300s crossatlantic communication would be impossible- and there would be no incentive to resume it. Needless to say, Fimbulewinter, and the Blodshed of the Northern crusade which precedes it, interspersed with civil war and kinstrife between Christian and Pagan Norse fit's in well with Norse Escathalogy and will serve to strengthen the religious foundation of vinland.
e. Expansion
Basically you would need enough people to make it across the atlantic and survive fimbulewinter to breed up a large enough population to withstand age of discovery Europeans (and abrorb, dominate or exterminate the coastal native Americans who survive the Plagues before they have a chance to recover). Given that they would suffer from technological stagnation in isolation (though renewed contact would probably allow them to narrow the Gap) you would need at least a million or so descendants of the original colonists, spread out across the Eastern seabord and Gulf of Mexico (after Conquering Mesoamerica?? Or at least the coastal regions??) to prevent Spain, Portugal, France and England from establishing viable colonies of their own. Assuming a natural increase rate similar to OTL New England colonies (2% per annum) and 200 years of relative peace that means a minimum of 20,000 colonists- about four times as much as OTL Greenland norse population and a quarter of the Iceland population. Doable?
You would also need a political structure which would be a cross between the Icelandic Allthing proto federal democracy (to prevent regional jarls from rebelling against the king), a remaining Jormviking military-religious establishment of some sort and a centralized monarchy to bear up under the strain of reencountering the Europeans.
f. Single POD. I'm going to take the battle of Fyrisvellir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Fýrisvellir . Stybojorn the strong, leader of the Jormvikings, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrbjörn_the_Strong successfully browbeats the King of Denmark Harald Bluetooth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Bluetooth into staying the course in his bid for the Swedish throne against his uncle Eric the "not so" victorious http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_the_Victorious.
